Prague, March 14 (CTK) – The reconstruction of the Prague-Brno motorway (D1) will cost over 20 billion crowns, but a solution that is markedly cheaper, quicker and more comfortable for drivers was rejected, weekly Tyden writes in its issue out yesterday, citing expert Jiri Petrak who prefers asphalt to concrete.
“The decision to reconstruction the motorway in the most expensive way was political, based on pressure from the concrete lobby,” said Petrak, former head of the Czech branch of the Mott MacDonald engineering and development consultancy firm.
Petrak said the state would pay only half the price or even less if asphalt would have been chosen instead of concrete.
Moreover, the reconstruction works would not take so long and driving would be more comfortable because tarmac roads, unlike concrete ones, do not need to have expansion joint gaps that make the journey bumpy, he said. “Driving the concrete road won’t be as comfortable as driving a well-done tarmac road,” he said.
The older a concrete road is, the bumpier it is, Tyden writes.
Petrak said he tried to convince the management of the Czech Road and Motorway Directorate (RSD) that asphalt would be better than concrete. He said he consulted the biggest road experts, professors and heads of construction firms and that all of them shared the view that the RSD plan had no sense.
But Petrak said nobody would tell this in public because their position in the Czech road construction business would be threatened.
Along with transport businessman Radim Jancura and road construction expert Miloslava Posvarova, Petrak represents the Shadow RSD, a Czech endowment for transport infrastructure that wants to improve public control of transport strategies and plans.
“I agree with Mr Petrak,” a high manager from RSD told Tyden, requesting anonymity.
However, RSD spokesman Jan Rydl told Tyden that the decision to use concrete had strong support and was correct.
RSD argues that concrete can be used without repairs much longer than asphalt and that trucks do not make tracks in it.
RSD dismissed the view that asphalt would always be cheaper. “It definitely cannot be said that concrete would be much more expensive. This is really not so,” Rydl said.
According to expert estimates, asphalt can be used on the D1 motorway without repairs for 7-15 years, while concrete can be used for 30 years at least.
But it is rather easy and cheap to repair an asphalt road, while repairing a concrete road actually means building a new motorway, Tyden writes, referring to Petrak.
When D1 was planned, it was expected that the concrete motorway would be covered with asphalt layers, Petrak said. This method saves 60 percent of the costs and time as well as million of tonnes of concrete waste, he added.
RSD argues that the Transport Ministry recommends that concrete be used for roads with heavy traffic, such as D1.
Petrak said no relevant study comparing the use of concrete and asphalt has been done.
He also said there are only two special vehicles for the building of a concrete motorway in the country, both owned by the Strabag company, while many firms have equipment for the construction of an asphalt road.
RSD dismissed the idea that the choice of concrete for D1 was done in order to prefer any firm.
